Obsculta Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 8 5-26-2020 Gregory of Nazianzus’ Concept of “Knowable” Transcendence William Orbih College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/obsculta Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons ISSN: 2472-2596 (print) ISSN: 2472-260X (online) Recommended Citation Orbih, William. 2020. Gregory of Nazianzus’ Concept of “Knowable” Transcendence. Obsculta 13, (1) : 80-99. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/obsculta/vol13/iss1/8. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Obsculta by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gregory of Nazianzus’ ABSTRACT: This paper outlines Concept of “Knowable” Gregory of Nazianzus’ thought on the knowability Transcendence of transcendence by Fr. William Orbih and according to the Cappadocian Father, In his book, The Domestication of what knowing God Transcendence, William Placher expresses entails. Beginning with a critical appraisal of what dismay over what he calls “trivial images William Placher means of God” in contemporary theology. These by the domestication of emerge from concerted attempts by Transcendence and his contemporary theologians to respond to expressed dismay over “trivial images of God” in the distant “lordly deity” of the Christian contemporary theology tradition, “incapable of being affected by arising from overconfidence the things of this world, standing at the in the human capacity summit of Metaphysical hierarchies, and to understand God’s 1 nature and the human reinforcing their oppressive structures.” ability to talk clearly and He argues that while the overall intention precisely about God after is valid, this overconfidence in the human the seventeenth century. Arguing that Gregory capacity to understand God’s nature and articulated this problem in the human ability to talk clearly and long before Placher, this precisely about God has led theology paper is an appraisal of astray.2 Precisely, it has led to what he coins Gregory’s response to an issue previously well- the “domestication of transcendence.” articulated by Placher. That is, in calling God transcendent, contemporary theologians refer to God as unknowable, while at the same time fundamentally speaking of transcendence as though it were one among the definable properties of God—an utterly comprehensible attribute at that! 1 William Placher, The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 1. 2 Ibid, 3. | 80 | Obsculta SIREN’S CALL by Katryna Bertucci Gregory of Nazianzus’ Concept of “Knowable” Transcendence |81 | However, while Placher traces the history of this problem to the seventeenth century, this paper argues that earlier Gregory of Nazianzus had articulated this problem and even responded to it in what it describes as his concept of “knowable” transcendence. It argues that for Gregory, unlike for Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—whose theologies Placher appraises to accentuate his point—God is not unknowable. God is knowable. Knowing God, however, is not synonymous to “containing” God. It is ascending and being contained by God. Theology, according to Gregory, is an ascent comparable to Moses ascending the mount of God (Ex 24: 18). The goal of this paper, therefore, is to outline Gregory’s theology of the knowability of transcendence, that is, what, according to the Cappadocian Father, knowing God means and what it implies for human nature and salvation. It will begin with an appraisal of what Placher means by the domestication of transcendence, paying attention to his evaluation of the theologies of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.3 Afterwards, it will outline how Gregory’s five theological orations can serve as a response to this problem. That is, it will demonstrate how, against the overconfidence of the Arians and Eunomians in their pretention to be able to assert something accurately about divine essence, Gregory insists that God is knowable yet transcendent. Most importantly, it will point to what Gregory thinks is at the heart of the perennial problem: theology misconstrued as anything other than an ascent of the theologian towards transcendence or knowing God ill-conceived as “containing” transcendence within our finite essence, language, and systems.4 THE DOMESTICATION OF TRANSCENDENCE Arguably, no other divine attribute has received the kind of attention among contemporary theologians that divine transcendence has. Divine Transcendence, as Mayra Rivera succinctly defines it, “is a theological idiom 3 This work does not intend to be a review of Placher’s book, nor should it preclude an actual reading of Placher’s work. Of interest is the introduction where Placher articulates what he means by the domestication of transcendence, as well as the first part of the book where he uses the theologies of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin to accentuate his point about how theology flourished before the seventeenth century. 4 I got the concept of “containing” God from a class lecture by Prof. Anatonios Khaled, Oct 18, 2019. Similarly, most of the arguments, especially towards the end of this paper, have been much shaped by Prof. Khaled’s class lectures. | 82 | Obsculta referring to God’s otherness.”5 It is also a controversial concept, she explains, a concept which progressive contemporary theologians are right to be suspicious about, given that it is often associated with hierarchical distance and separation of God from creation.6 However, before this very recent era of suspicion and caution, there is a long history of adventure with the idea of the “otherness” of God who is radically separate from the created order. For many theologians throughout the long history of Christianity, transcendence is the first and perhaps the only accurate and “positive” thing to be said about God. As such, it is the vital prelude upon which every other thing that can be said about God rests. For these theologians, therefore, divine transcendence is the prelude to the whole province of negative theology. This is because transcendence does not only express the total incomprehensibility of God but ultimately implies the inadequacy and inappropriateness of human categories as applied to God.7 Augustine of Hippo is an apt representative of this school. According to him, the total transcendence of the godhead quite surpasses the capacity of ordinary speech. Therefore, “when we think about God the trinity, we must never forget that our thoughts are quite inadequate, our intellect and language totally incapable of grasping the being of God.”8 In other words, transcendence is what one gets when God’s infiniteness meets human limitedness. However, there have been other theologians in the history of theology for whom divine transcendence is simply one other thing that can be said about God. Karl Rahner accuses these theologians of treating the incomprehensibility of God in isolation of other Christian doctrines. According to him, rather than recognizing it as the proper starting point of theology, they relegate it to an afterthought. Rather than seeing it as the attribute of attributes, they see it as just one other divine attribute. As a result, the incomprehensibility of God is not brought out clearly and firmly in, for instance, the traditional treatment of the question of the meaning of human 5 Mayra Rivera, The Touch of Transcendence: A Postcolonial Theology of God (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), ix. 6 Ibid. 7 Placher, Domestication of Transcendence, 6. 8 Augustine, De Trinitate, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2015), 7.4.7. Gregory of Nazianzus’ Concept of “Knowable” Transcendence |83 | existence.9 In the opinion of Placher, this trend became particularly noticeable among theologians from around the seventeenth century, which for him coincides with the beginning of the modern era. Beginning from that time, thinkers in theology, as well as other fields, grew increasingly confident about human capacities. This confidence was precisely in “their ability to understand God and God’s role in the world and to contribute to human salvation—and narrowed their understanding of what counted as reasonable articulation of and argument for faith.”10 Just like every other development in theology, this was motivated by sociohistorical factors. These include the thirty years war (1618-1648), motivated in substantial part by religious difference; civil wars in European city-states, e.g., England; severe depression; and plagues.11 In a world full of these many uncertainties as the seventeenth century was, Placher argues that it is only natural that individuals would want to present their beliefs compellingly. It is thus not the case that theologians from the seventeenth century onward rejected the notion of God’s transcendence, but that they increasingly thought they could, should, and must talk clearly about God. Thus, “rather than explaining how all categories break down when applied to God” as virtually all theologians before the modern era have been wont to do, they set the stage for talking about transcendence as one of the definable properties God possesses.12 As a result, “transcendence got domesticated, and theology suffered.”13 Placher’s central thesis in The Domestication of Transcendence can be delineated into three interrelated